The principle I agree with.
Those of us from the "film generation" quite possibly started, as I did, with a single shutter-speed fixed aperture camera, kept the sun over our shoulder and made our pictures like that.
The emphasis was on the composition and working within the limitations of the available equipment.
The emergence of do-it-all digital magic that can cope with virtually everything from the proverbial "
black cat in a coal cellar" to "
a snow field on a glacier in full sunlight" and produce a well exposed image with virtually no user input has meant there's now a generation out there with no "real" photographic experience but who expect every exposure to be a masterpiece without really knowing why
Whilst not suggesting the total reversion to the digital equivalent of a box Brownie or Instamatic, I'd suggest starting by setting the camera in Av (or Tv if preferred), with a fixed ISO, and working to understand what works (and consequently what doesn't) and why, then adding a feature at a time so's to experience the advantages of the various options.
In my mind, amateur photography is really a combination of two aspects, the technical mastery of the equipment (to the extent that gives acceptable results) and the artistic vision to "see" what will make a good picture.
All too often I meet apparently well-equipped photographers who ask me "
What settings do you use?" then give a totally blank look when I quote "
1/1500 @ f/8 - auto ISO"
Then there was the chap who insisted his top-of-the-range bridge camera needed to be replaced because he couldn't "
do macro" … totally oblivious to the little "
tulip" icon on his mode dial which gave him all the capabilities he needed, but simply hadn't been bothered to read about
Just my tuppence worth - YMMV - etc. etc.